sfcityduck

CGC does not state that submission volume is a factor in the "first-in, first-out" policy. Submission volume should not matter if they have adequate balancing of their staffng.

Sorry Moses, which god gave you the stone tablets? Grading standards are by definition subjective because they are, quite literally, made up. And they have evolved quite a lot over the history of the hobby. There is no one universal standard that all adhere to. The entire value of CGC is that they market themselves as a consistent intermediary. They make money off of the fact that grading is not objective. Otherwise, there would have been no need for them.

Because the great hidden in plain site truth of CGC is that it doesn't need the best graders in the world, it just needs graders that adhere closely enough to its consistent standards that the marketplace maintains trust in CGC. And, frankly, CGC is so important to the market, that not even some of the laughable grades we saw the Promise books get is going to damage its reputation so much that it fall into the number 2 spot. The biggest threat to CGC is disappointing customer demand, so hiring more graders and training them up to CGC standards is the obvious no-brainer business plan (and exactly what they have been doing).

Childishness. This is just a hobby to me. My profession pays me more than CGC can afford. Which does not mean I am ignorant of grading. I started collecting 20 years prior to you. I survived as a comic collector for decades without the crutch of CGC because it did not exist. I appreciate what they do - being a trusted mediary that helps eliminate disputes over the grades of comics being sold - because it has real value. But, there are many people who I would trust to grade comics other than "professional graders."

I said earlier that I would not expect you to. I also suspect you have seen plenty of CGC grades with which you disagreed.

No. That's just a question of conforming to a grading criteria. The problem with grading is that it is not objective. It is made up, and there has never been complete consensus. CGC itself goes through hard and soft periods and grading varies at CGC with plenty of head scratchers. But, CGC should have no problem training people up to conform to its criteria. Because CGC has its own criteria, it does not have to worry about the lack of consensus as to grading criteria. It just has to strive for internal consistency, and that's very teachable. In many ways, they might be better off avoiding folks who have been longterm graders because they may not quite jive with CGC's views.

They have nowhere to go. CGC dominates the field. Short of a highly respected industry player coming across enough capital to scale up to CGC levels and beyond almost immediately, losing employees is not a concern. I suspect that CGC views the bulk of its graders as fungible.

I would not expect CGC to hire successful dealers to be their graders. So I don't see your point. You can train people how to grade.

The "short list of people who are professional graders" is not the universe of people who can grade. Several of the guys with the best collections I can think of, many of the best copies of GA keys, have those books raw, have never been paid to grade, yet can accurately grade their books and have made historically famous upgrades using those skills. I am a little surprised that some folks act like comic collecting began with CGC. It did not.

Which means?

As I said, no need to be childish in the "defense" of CGC. You have never met me or have any basis for that comment. It's credibility eroding.

CGC already has competent graders who can train others.

As a guy who has been collecting Gold/Siler/Bronze/Copper since the 1970s, I'm wondering what grading schools you think we all went to? Grading was a self-taught skill, and any consensus that has evolved is a product of consistent standards that gained traction through folks like Overstreet, Fishler and Borock. CGC's standards are not necessarily the same as some other folks (some are strictert others less so), but CGC can train its folks to conform to the standards.

Blackrock will laugh at that excuse. They will say that employees can always be trained. And they would be right. CGC is going to have to train up staff to conform to its standards.

I don't see how a submission moratorium solves anything. Unless they staff dramatically up, they'll just face a tsunami of submissions after the moratorium ends and their customers will be pissed for the three month period that they could not submit, likely choosing alternatives if they are desperate to submit. The only solution is to dramatically staff up, and at least if they keep taking submissions they get a sense of how much staff they really need.

Take it to a political board.

Which is why the solution is easy. Shift graders from Moderns to Economy or allocate the newly hired graders to Economy until the TATs even out. The short term problem is evening out the TATS as, on the longer term, CGC staff up to meet demand. Like any concerned customer of a company I like, I am interested in helping CGC improve, not in abandoning it. If I was so extremely pissed off by what I viewed as misleading business practices that I reached the point of wanting to leave CGC, I would not just leave CGC, I'd sue it. I'm nowhere near that point. CGC has fixable problems and I think Matt, with Blackrock's support and "encouragement," will do so. The notion that it is the status quo or hit the highway is a childish view that no smart business would ever take. Blackrock will understand that the key to their investment is increasing customers, not turning them away due to easily solvable problems. CGC's single biggest problem right now is TATs, and the only solution is to get more graders and allocate those graders appropriately, making the supply equal the demand. That's how you get a sustainable business that satisfies its customers. If too many graders are allocated to moderns, not a hard solution to shift some to Economy to lower the Economy TAT so it balances out and conforms practices to your representations to the customer base. The notion it is "disloyal" to say anything critical of CGC is a fan-boy mentality left over from the "Make Mine Marvel (only)" days. I'd hope we'd all be mature enough to have outgrown that faulty thinking and instead think like people who care about the hobby and its central businesses such as CGC.

So you agree Standard is a higher tier. And you agree that we don't mark Standard on the boxes. So, therefore, you agree that marking a tier on a box is not the test it is a higher tier. Thanks for the agreements. But you disagree the massive difference between the TATs for Economy and Modern are a problem. This is why you are wrong: The difference renders statements made about CGC regarding TATs false. That causes frustration for Economy and Standard tier submitters, which is bad for CGC's business. If you think it is not a problem for a business to make inaccurate statements and alienate customers, we will have to agree to disagree. I have no idea what CGC's "other, much larger, problems" might be. Nothing is a larger problem for a business than customer relations. (Adding new lines of business is not a problem, it is an opportunity, unless it impacts existing customers.) If you want to elaborate on what the "other, much larger, problems" are, feel free.

Care to explain what you are saying "no" to?

Again, I think Matt will solve problems if we identify them and provide productive feedback.

So Standard is also only separated by age? That's why we don't mark Standard on on the boxes? You are wrong again. The best thing we can do for CGC is identify the problems that cause us frustration and suggest solutions. Burying a problem like a cat in a litter box does not solve it.

You're back? Same sockpuppet creation date as Buzz Cola. Same lack of common sense as your comment untruthfully defamed me as well.

That fact is not consistent with the statement I highlighted in the first post of this thread: CGC controls the number of graders they assign to a tier. Based on the above, Economy books submitted before Moderns (e.g. "first-in" Economy) should be "first-out," not 40 work days later on average. Solution is simple, shift graders from Modern to Economy until the TATs at least even out (assuming they are the same tier) or Economy is faster (if Economy is a higher tier). Same for Standard.

And the average for Moderns, which you say is the same tier level as Economy, is must shorter than the average for Economy (e.g., not "first-in, first-out" except for priority given to higher tiers).

Now that's just waving a white flag. I'm glad you recognize the problem, they need to shift the balance of graders between Economy and Modern until it balances out.